Endorsements

As the frontrunners emerge, the endorsements are flying. Each news cycle brings newly announced supporters into the public discussion. Some are quite interesting. Endorsements may not make a whole lot of difference in the success of a campaign but they can bring attention to a candidate. And, they can validate voters not quite secure in a choice.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney is the favored candidate by those most vocal in claiming the 'conservative' mantel. I think the race is between Romney and McCain at this point so I'll focus on them. McCain is more of an old school kind of Republican, pre-religious right arrogance, and came into office supporting and working closely with Ronald Reagan. Reagan, today, would not be acceptable to 'conservatives' so it is no surprise that McCain is reaping the wrath of indignation for his pushing ahead of Romney in the polls.

By the end of vote tallying Tuesday night, or early Wednesday morning, the Republican party will probably have a candidate likely to be nominated at the summer convention. I will not be a part of that decision, as Texas votes March 4, so my state may not make or break a campaign. I was a Rudy supporter so my first choice is out anyway. Tuesday's results will also tell if Texas is a deal breaker. We have 140 delegates on the Republican side. For the Dems the number is 228. If Texas is important this time, it will be the first election since the primary system began. Interesting.

I have not made up my mind, completely, for whom I'll cast my vote. I don't worry about either frontrunner as the Republican candidate. Both are far better than either of their Dem counterparts. The next president will most likely appoint 3 Supreme Court judges. That alone should make every voter in the Republican party and Independents, too, rise from couches across the country and head for voting sites. Clinton gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Hillary made that choice. Something to think about. Both Republican front runners have pledged to appoint judges in the model of Roberts and Alito, as President Bush did. Romney doesn't have a record to check on a federal level. McCain has voted for every Republican nominee since he's been in office.

The judge issue is very important to me. We are a nation of laws and judicial activism under the previous Clinton administration, during those dreamy 1990's as the Dems would have you remember the decade, flourished.

McCain is criticized by 'conservatives' for participating in the Gang of 14, the group of Senators, 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats who came together to resolve the log jam of judicial confirmations to the federal courts, yet I would argue that time has proven that to be an unfair criticism. Richard Baehr wrote in American Thinker in an article dated January 30, 2008 that "to put it plainly, the critics of the deal are flat out wrong. Conservatives should thank John McCain and the other Senators who were part of the Gang of 14 for getting three Appeals Courts nominees who had been held up, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Pricilla Owen, approved quickly and Brett Kavanaugh approved a bit later, and for Samuel Alito making it onto the Supreme Court without a filibuster blocking his way. And they should thank John McCain for preserving for the Republican Party the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations that might be made by a Democratic President beginning in 2009 or later."

Let's hop into the wayback machine for a bit. Remember why 'conservatives' were so bent out of shape about the success of the Gang of 14? It was because the Republicans were in control of both the House and the Senate and had been since 1994, except for brief back and forths in the Senate. The arrogance of 'conservatives' brought about the change in leadership in 2006. Republican leadership couldn't see into the future to a time when the Dems would win elections and the balance of power would change. Senate leadership and foot soldiers in the Republican party felt no obligation to work with the other side of the aisle. Granted, the Dems were hell bent to oppose anyone just for the excercise of doing so, on a level never done before, but with Republicans so rigid, neither party sought the high ground and the people out in flyover country saw that nothing was accomplished in D.C. So, the nominations went nowhere.

The Gang of 14 insured that successful 'yes' vote on cloture during the Alito debating process and he was confirmed without filibuster. As Baehr points out, this also probably insured Roberts nomination as filibuster free.

With the current atmosphere, the liklihood of Democrats maintaining control of both Houses of Congress and now also the White House, Republicans will most likely also see the Republican number of Senate seats shrink. The Dems have a history of using political payback as the action of choice these past two Bush terms. Had Republicans used the nuclear option during the confirmation process earlier, there is no doubt that this would be our fate with them in charge. Neither Clinton nor Obama have any history of working with the opposition party. There is no reason to believe either will in the future.

The 'change' both speak about and the need to bring the country together? That is the real fairy tale. Neither are unifiers.

So, I would suggest that those so quick to claim McCain is no 'conservative' because he has honed an ability to work with the other party are short sighted and arrogant in thought. George Bush, both the elder and junior, knew going into the White House that the art of politics is all about striking common ground. The first major legislation of the current Bush? No Child Left Behind. That legislation was successful because Teddy Kennedy was so closely involved. At the time, Dems were in control of the Senate. It was a realistic necessity. Whether you support the legislation or not, the fact is that today black and Hispanic students are testing at record high levels. Holding teachers and school administrators accountable is a good thing.

Romney made many compromises as governor of arguably the most liberal state in the union. While Thompson was in the race, Romney was bashed as a RINO. McCain has always been pro-life, Romney not. McCain has not voted for tax increases. Ever. Romney has. Yes, McCain voted against the tax breaks early in the Bush administrations. He links them to spending cuts. He also acknowledges that the tax cuts have kept our economy strong, post 9/11. And, both McCain and Romney are for making the tax cuts permanent.

There has been no stonger advocate for spending cuts and fiscal responsibility in the Senate than McCain. Now he has the endorsement from Tom Coburn, R-OK, a leading watchdog on spending and a very 'conservative' Republican.

Nancy Reagan and Michael Reagan are privately endorsing McCain. Neither will do so publicly as a matter of decorum. You remember decorum, don't you?

Ted Olson, Jack Kemp, and Steve Forbes endorse McCain. So does Rudy. As does Rick Perry, Texas governor, protege of George W. Bush.

Radio talk show hosts are endorsing Romney. Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are on daily bash fests against McCain. Laura and Sean have publicly endorsed Romney. I think that is a mistake. It'll be hard for them to tell celebrities now to just shut up and sing or act when they have publicly endorsed a specific candidate themselves. In the primaries. The endorsements tarnish thoughts.

Liz Cheney, former Senator Rick Santorum, and others have recently endorsed Romney. This is what the primaries are about. Go and vote for whomever you most support. This who's the real conservative nonsense has to stop. All are Republicans. All are better than the Dem alternative if you believe in Republican principles. Fiscal responsibility, less government intervention in our lives, cutting taxes, placing judges on the bench who use the rule of law and not personal agendas. Those are Republican principles.

We've had an abundance of decent candidates this election cycle. Winning is the goal. To think otherwise is simply naive.